John wrote John in his lifetime

[redleghunter]

The most concrete answers here have affirmed the traditional view that John wrote John.

Many Scholars have drifted so far from scripture and from tradition that they think their own new manmade traditions sound authoritative when actually these have no credibility at all.

That John wrote John is actually completely obvious and is in effect a test of honesty.

Not all scholars (probably the majority) have not gone off the reservation:

http://evidenceforjesuschrist.org/Pages/bible/dates-nt-john.htm

http://evidenceforjesuschrist.org/Pages/bible/dating-nt-chronological_order.htm

 

[redleghunter]

On the whole I think John the Evangelist, though with additions via the Johannine school (primarily the last chapter).

It is possible to argue that the Johannine school wrote the whole thing, but their source was John, so it seems to make little difference in the long run.

Lazarus is wishful thinking, while John the Elder is more plausible. However the earliest traditions attribute it to JtE, so that is the most likely author.

What evidence is there for an actual Johannine school? I think someone in the 19th century made that up.

 

[mindlight]

Not all scholars (probably the majority) have not gone off the reservation:

http://evidenceforjesuschrist.org/Pages/bible/dates-nt-john.htm

http://evidenceforjesuschrist.org/Pages/bible/dating-nt-chronological_order.htm

That is an encouraging list. There are a substantial number in that list who think that John can be dated earlier than the traditional 85AD and even before the fall of Jerusalem. But I never heard anyone here argue that case which was one thing I was hoping for from this thread.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

What evidence is there for an actual Johannine school? I think someone in the 19th century made that up.

I don’t think it refers to a physical school, rather it is a school of thought.

The evidence is in writing styles and content, primarily the emphasis on 7 (I ams, signs etc.) which is thrown off by the last chapter.

How convincing it is, I don’t remember. I’m not an expert on the book. Any good commentary should make it clear whether it is a viable idea or not, but I don’t recall reading any commentary specifically dismissing it.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

That is an encouraging list. There are a substantial number in that list who think that John can be dated earlier than the traditional 85AD and even before the fall of Jerusalem. But I never heard anyone here argue that case which was one thing I was hoping for from this thread.

Why were you hoping for that?

 

[redleghunter]

The evidence is in writing styles and content, primarily the emphasis on 7 (I ams, signs etc.) which is thrown off by the last chapter.

You mean John chapter 21 has a different writing style?

 

[redleghunter]

I don’t think it refers to a physical school, rather it is a school of thought.

The evidence is in writing styles and content, primarily the emphasis on 7 (I ams, signs etc.) which is thrown off by the last chapter.

How convincing it is, I don’t remember. I’m not an expert on the book. Any good commentary should make it clear whether it is a viable idea or not, but I don’t recall reading any commentary specifically dismissing it.

Considering the last chapter is an epilogue there does not seem to be question John's authorship:

Literary Style, Structure, and Other Issues
The Gospel of John varies from the Synoptic Gospels in more ways than one. J. Ramsey Michaels categorizes them into two types of variation: (1) the style and content of Jesus' teaching, and (2) the chronology and structure of Jesus' ministry. [14][15]21:1-25) seems a bit out of place because the last couple of verses in the twentieth chapter seem to bring the Gospel to a close. This has led some to believe that the epilogue was a later addition by John or one of his disciples. There is, however, no reason to think that John did not write it. There are 28 words in the last chapter that are not found elsewhere in the Gospel, but most of these are caused by the subject-matter in the first 14 verses. [16][17]
https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/intros/john.cfm​

 

[redleghunter]

That is an encouraging list. There are a substantial number in that list who think that John can be dated earlier than the traditional 85AD and even before the fall of Jerusalem. But I never heard anyone here argue that case which was one thing I was hoping for from this thread.

I believe most who hold to a much earlier date also hold to the preterist or historic view of eschatology.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Origen, an early Christian, did a line by line commentary on John but did not include the portion with the adulterous woman. There is in fact no mention of that for centuries.

Also, the epilogue contains a writing style that is alien to the whole book. It makes use of a lot of words that appear nowhere else in the text.

Could the bulk of the book still have been John? There is no original Hebrew manuscript of John or any New Testament work. John, as the story goes, was a fisherman who was probably illiterate, and certainty wasn't literate in a second language like Greek. (I'd argue that John and Peter were hellenistic Jewish scholars, but I doubt you would give that consideration.) It would be strange to suggest that John dictated in Hebrew and that it was written down directly into Greek.

While I agree with your first two paragraphs, I take issue with “probably illiterate”.

Jewish culture demanded that all males read from the scrolls, primarily Torah.

While writing was a specialized skill (e.g. scribes), reading would not have been.

In all probability all the disciples could read. They would have been trilingual: Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek.

It is not a huge leap from there to the idea that some of them could have written things down.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Considering the last chapter is an epilogue there does not seem to be question John's authorship:

Literary Style, Structure, and Other Issues
The Gospel of John varies from the Synoptic Gospels in more ways than one. J. Ramsey Michaels categorizes them into two types of variation: (1) the style and content of Jesus' teaching, and (2) the chronology and structure of Jesus' ministry. [14][15]21:1-25) seems a bit out of place because the last couple of verses in the twentieth chapter seem to bring the Gospel to a close. This has led some to believe that the epilogue was a later addition by John or one of his disciples. There is, however, no reason to think that John did not write it. There are 28 words in the last chapter that are not found elsewhere in the Gospel, but most of these are caused by the subject-matter in the first 14 verses. [16][17]
https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/intros/john.cfm​

I think you answered your own question to me. Even the above quote notes the differences in the last chapter.

The problem is that the earliest copies of John include the final chapter, so if it was a different author or written at a different time by John, we have no way of knowing. So the authorship of the the last chapter is speculative, but probably John or those influenced by John.

In the long run it only matters if you think that the authorship of the whole gospel matters, and I don't think it does, the final chapter reflects at the very least stories told by John, even if not written by him and the authorship of that final chapter in no way detracts from the message or importance of the whole gospel.

 

[redleghunter]

I think you answered your own question to me. Even the above quote notes the differences in the last chapter.

The problem is that the earliest copies of John include the final chapter, so if it was a different author or written at a different time by John, we have no way of knowing. So the authorship of the the last chapter is speculative, but probably John or those influenced by John.

In the long run it only matters if you think that the authorship of the whole gospel matters, and I don't think it does, the final chapter reflects at the very least stories told by John, even if not written by him and the authorship of that final chapter in no way detracts from the message or importance of the whole gospel.

Actually the 'speculative' approach even with the complete manuscripts points more to John penning the last chapter. The problem with modern and post modern scholarship is they ignore the testimony of the early church fathers. For them there was absolutely no debate on who wrote the gospels.

For some reason 19th century liberal scholars thought the Bible fell from the sky and had to be reconfirmed just in case the ancient dudes got it wrong.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Actually the 'speculative' approach even with the complete manuscripts points more to John penning the last chapter. The problem with modern and post modern scholarship is they ignore the testimony of the early church fathers. For them there was absolutely no debate on who wrote the gospels.

For some reason 19th century liberal scholars thought the Bible fell from the sky and had to be reconfirmed just in case the ancient dudes got it wrong.

Actually I think you are overdoing this viewpoint. The early church fathers believe that John Mark wrote Mark... but what about the ending, who wrote that (or those as there are two endings)?

Simply saying that the early church fathers gave the authorship and therefore there is no debate is poor scholarship. John didn't write the story of the woman caught in adultery and it is likely that the early church fathers were the ones inserting that story into the gospel.

Thus what the early church fathers say is good evidence, but not conclusive, nor does it dismiss the idea that parts of the gospels were written by others and added on/inserted after original writing.

So I am happy to say that the evidence points to Matthew and Luke being the whole authors of their gospels, the same cannot be said for the other two, but that the evidence points to Mark and John being the authors of the bulk of their gospels with portions added on at a later date, possibly by Mark and John, but not necessarily so (and very unlikely in Mark's case).

 

[mark kennedy]

Basically the theme of this thread is to do with who wrote Johns gospel and when.

The traditional view is that John the Evangelist (the Disciple whom Jesus loved) wrote this around 85 AD as the only surviving apostle by that time. But more recently people have suggested an earlier date between 50-70AD (so before the fall of Jerusalem).

A number of liberal scholars have congregated around various alternative views:

1) John the Elder wrote it later

2) Lazarus

3) Some kind of Johannine school composed it much later drawing from earlier sources as well as redacting the material.

Who and when?

https://www.theopedia.com/gospel-of-john

EDIT: Removed word modern from phrase liberal scholars. As the most uptodate research tends towards affirming John as author rather than disputing that.

The Apostle John was John the Elder. He pastored the church at Ephesus in till he was too old, the served as an Elder. The entire New Testament was complete by 70 AD, Johns Gospel is no exception.

 

[redleghunter]

Actually I think you are overdoing this viewpoint. The early church fathers believe that John Mark wrote Mark... but what about the ending, who wrote that (or those as there are two endings)?

Simply saying that the early church fathers gave the authorship and therefore there is no debate is poor scholarship. John didn't write the story of the woman caught in adultery and it is likely that the early church fathers were the ones inserting that story into the gospel.

Thus what the early church fathers say is good evidence, but not conclusive, nor does it dismiss the idea that parts of the gospels were written by others and added on/inserted after original writing.

So I am happy to say that the evidence points to Matthew and Luke being the whole authors of their gospels, the same cannot be said for the other two, but that the evidence points to Mark and John being the authors of the bulk of their gospels with portions added on at a later date, possibly by Mark and John, but not necessarily so (and very unlikely in Mark's case).

The last few verses of Mark is another matter. Scholars early on came to that conclusion because they could not find ample evidence of early church fathers quoting that passage.

The same goes for the adulterous woman in John.

However, none of those peculiarities existed in early patristic writings with regards to the last chapter of John. It was a later 19th century textual criticism.

 

[mark kennedy]

I believe most who hold to a much earlier date also hold to the preterist or historic view of eschatology.

I hold to a much earlier view, the entire New Testament complete before 70 AD. The Revelation is clearly predictive prophecy written as historical narrative. Most of the Preterists and historically fulfilled proponents have one thing in common, they shamelessly allegorize the text.

Its inconceivable the church would accept a scroll supposedly written by John unless the Apostle were there to confirm the authenticity. The New Testament represents the Apostolic witness.

 

[mindlight]

I believe most who hold to a much earlier date also hold to the preterist or historic view of eschatology.

In those cases the imprecise fit between prophecy and fulfilment and especially in Revelation would disqualify the interpretation. But at least Preterists do not buy into the antisupernatural assumptions of many late nineteenth century German scholars.

 

[mindlight]

The Apostle John was John the Elder. He pastored the church at Ephesus in till he was too old, the served as an Elder. The entire New Testament was complete by 70 AD, Johns Gospel is no exception.

How would you defend a pre 70 AD dating?

 

[mark kennedy]

How would you defend a pre 70 AD dating?

The church was losing Apostles around that time, our teaching is based on Christ and the Apostles. The church grew by leaps and bounds, especially in Asia Minor, the reading of the scrolls would have become very common. The Bible, Old and New Testament are a living witness, being attached to living communities their entire history. The is no way the are going to accept a gospel according to John after his death. He wrote that in the middle of his prime.

 

[mindlight]

I hold to a much earlier view, the entire New Testament complete before 70 AD.

John did not die a violent death like the other apostles and lived to an old age. So he had time to write later on. The strongest tradition dates the gospel to 85AD so you really need something concrete to overthrow that.

The Revelation is clearly predictive prophecy written as historical narrative. Most of the Preterists and historically fulfilled proponents have one thing in common, they shamelessly allegorize the text.

The messages to the 7 churches were probably to definite churches but could be taken as types of churches through history also.

Revelation is primarily a witness to the glorified Christ rather than the more earthy worship of Ceasar or indeed general dictators.

The style used suggest some parts were fulfilled, some are being fufilled and some have yet to be fulfilled much like the Kingdom of God itself is here and yet still to come.

So yes there is a predictive element to the much of the book but that is not the exclusive purpose here. The symbols John uses to describe the nearly incomprehensible realities of the heavenly realm are pregnant with meanings that are not entirely to do with future prophecy. That people, including Preterists , have taken allegorisation too far does not overrule the multiple layers of meaning and fulfilment in the symbols and prophecies contained in the book.

Its inconceivable the church would accept a scroll supposedly written by John unless the Apostle were there to confirm the authenticity. The New Testament represents the Apostolic witness.

In Johns and Matthews case and indeed Lukes case that affirmation by the primary witnesses seems to be true. But not sure if Mark was finally written up following Peters death.

 

[mindlight]

The church was losing Apostles around that time, our teaching is based on Christ and the Apostles. The church grew by leaps and bounds, especially in Asia Minor, the reading of the scrolls would have become very common. The Bible, Old and New Testament are a living witness, being attached to living communities their entire history. The is no way the are going to accept a gospel according to John after his death. He wrote that in the middle of his prime.

John was not the action man , in perpetual danger, that Peter and Paul were. Though he did have his challenges. Also there was an assumption amongst many early Christians, addressed in the text of his gospel, that he would not die at all. This mention in the gospel implies that it was clear he would die and possibly that he needed to write his witness down before he did. So he remained a living witness while the other apostles died off. But towards the end of his life and with the maturity of those additional years he wrote a deeper reflection on the person of Christ that added to the witness found in the synoptics. The tradition supports a later writing date and I cannot see any evidence for an earlier one in the text. indeed the text reads like a more mature and structured reflection on Christ to me than the other gospels.